I believe the faith is not a buffet, you can not pick and choose. I do believe that one must accept the teachings of the true Church 100%.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

I was not aware that the Chruch taught iconclasm. I was taught the Church condemned it as heresy at the 7th ecumenical council. Am I wrong???

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

What is this the pot calling the kettle? A buffet??? You pick and chose what you believe. Be fair to Tom. If his priest, his spiritual father says he shouldn't go to the akathist then he shouldn't go. One thing you should be learning with the GOA is the concept of spiritual fatherhood. If you accept the teachings of the EOC 100% then of course you have ceased attending liturgy at the supposedly RC place you go to.

Regarding some of the hyperbole containted in the Akathist I cited, I wonder if some of it may be justified in the following manner:

1. In regards, to Mary being the only "intercessor, comforter, and help", it should be noted that all three of these descriptions are properly ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the NT. Perhaps, since the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and the power of the Highest "overshadowed" her in such a unique way in the Incarnation, these exclusive hyperbolic statements may indeed be in acknowledgement of this unique relationship with the Holy Spirit.

2. I understand that Mary was (and still is) regarded as a type of the Church. Therefore, when one says he is seeking Mary's exclusive "guardianship" or "refuge" or "protection", could this be perhaps an acknowledgement of the mystical association between Mary and the Church?

Sorry, if these thoughts are off-base in anyway. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize how such seemingly idolatrous language is addressed to Mary when Orthodoxy maintains that Mary is NOT to be worshipped, particularly if I may be otherwise convinced that Orthodoxy is the True Church kept from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit :-

(bump)

Sorry to quote my own post, but it appeared that this thread was straying off topic somewhat. :-

Any comments on my thoughts about how one might be able to justify the seemingly excessive Marian devotion cited above?

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media

Carpo...I do not pick and choose...for God's sake you don't even know me! I am stuck between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, struggling to find the truth, Tom believes he has already found the truth, he has already chosen to embrace Orthodoxy. And I do not believe one can embrace Orthodoxy or Catholicism and pick and choose what he or she likes and doesn't like. And I never remember Tom saying his spiritual father told him not to attend certain services in the Church.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

And I never remember Tom saying his spiritual father told him not to attend certain services in the Church.

posted by Tom at 6:19

My Priest just says that if I have not reached that point in Orthodoxy where I am comfortable with a specific part, then he sees no reason for me to be forced into something that I am not ready to accept.

What his priest said is WAY different than advising him not to attend.

His priest seems to have just told him if he has a problem with the service he doesnt have to attend, to me, thats different than the priest telling him not to go.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

I really appreciated your second point as it is not something I had really considered before. I'm not sure that the words of the Akathist hymn can be understood as speaking of the church, but this clay pot is still pretty dirty on the inside, you may be seeing things a lot clearer than me .

We celebrate Epiphany as one of the times when all three persons of the Holy Trinity were manifest and some time ago it dawned on me that Mary had experienced a similiar epiphany at her annunciation (the will of the Father, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceiving the Son), so now everytime I look at an icon of Panagia with the Christ child I consider myself to be looking at an icon of the Holy Trinity in that sense.

I don't know if this is really pertinent to the topic at hand, its just something I wanted to share.

More honourable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, oh Theotokos we magnify you.

Logged

We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. Robert Wilensky Know the difference between success and fame.

I really appreciated your second point as it is not something I had really considered before. I'm not sure that the words of the Akathist hymn can be understood as speaking of the church, but this clay pot is still pretty dirty on the inside, you may be seeing things a lot clearer than me.

Wow...I certainly don't feel as if I'm seeing things clearly :-, but thanks for the compliment.

Quote

We celebrate Epiphany as one of the times when all three persons of the Holy Trinity were manifest and some time ago it dawned on me that Mary had experienced a similiar epiphany at her annunciation (the will of the Father, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceiving the Son), so now everytime I look at an icon of Panagia with the Christ child I consider myself to be looking at an icon of the Holy Trinity in that sense.

I don't know if this is really pertinent to the topic at hand, its just something I wanted to share.

This guy realy messed with history. The whole controversy over calling Mary Christotokos instead of Theotokos really had little to do with Mary. It had to do with the Arian heretics wanting to say that there was a difference between Christ and God. In other words, Jesus was not God, so we should call his mother Christotokos instead of Theotokos.

This guy realy messed with history. The whole controversy over calling Mary Christotokos instead of Theotokos really had little to do with Mary. It had to do with the Arian heretics wanting to say that there was a difference between Christ and God. In other words, Jesus was not God, so we should call his mother Christotokos instead of Theotokos.

Maybe YOU should get YOUR history straight on this one. The issue of whether to call Mary "Christotokos" or "Theotokos" was really connected to the Church's battle against Nestorianism. As the Nestorians taught, "He whom Mary bore is merely Christ's human person, as separated from the divine Person of God the Word; he is not God incarnate, so we cannot call Mary 'Birthgiver of God' (Theotokos)."

I think it was Thomas Hopko that stated somewhere that the Church used to use the term Theotokos in the liturgy for years before (in Fact Origen is the first documented writer that used the phrase but many other fathers had already used it around the early 3rd century) the controversy was just Nestorius around 400 AD caused a big fuss over not liking the term and wanting it changed to Christotokos.

Protestants always have trouble with this issue. How could the eternal God be born of a temporal woman? Yet they have no problem believing that the eternal Christ was given a human body in the Theotokos' womb. Really, I think they're afraid that the title "mother of God" elevates the Theotokos above God; this is a commendable position insofar as their commitment to keeping the Holy Trinity as the focus of our faith. When they see that the Theotokos can be venerated for her role in salvation without diminishing in any way our dependence on God for our salvation, they generally cease to have a problem with the title "mother of God."

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

this is a commendable position insofar as their commitment to keeping the Holy Trinity as the focus of our faith.

I disagree. I think it is neither commendable, nor keeps the Holy Trinity as the focus of the Christian Faith. All doctrines about the Theotokos are Christological doctrines, and all Christological doctrines are Trinitarian doctrines. We cannot claim to know anything about the Trinity if we don't know the truth about the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity.To deny the title "Mother of God" is to deny a Christological Truth- namely, the Two Natures in One Hypostasis. To say that "Mary is not the Mother of God" means that the Hypostasis she gave Birth to is not God, but somehow either "became God" later (which is the heresy of Adoptionism or Monarchianism) or that the Hypostasis Mary gave birth to is a different Hypostasis to the Pre-Incarnate Christ (which is the heresy of Nestorianism).I find nothing commendable in expounding these heresies about Christ and the Holy Trinity.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. I did not mean to say that the position itself is commendable, but rather the desire to keep the Trinity as the focus of our faith. Like many Protestant theologies, their position actually undermines what they're trying to do, but they generally hold that position out of a lack of understanding of the Trinity rather than a desire to deny the Trinity.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

The term itself is a bit on the polemic; it's a "rub their face in it" to the Nestorians. Therefore it's a bit of a red flag for most Protestants, who have never been run up against the Christological disputes and therefore have no context for understanding that it doesn't really mean what it seems to say on the surface. They put the statement of the Council of Chalcedon in the back of the BCP, so Episcopalians at least have no excuse.

Protestants always have trouble with this issue. How could the eternal God be born of a temporal woman? Yet they have no problem believing that the eternal Christ was given a human body in the Theotokos' womb.

I was told that people, Protestant or not, must realize that Mary's role as "Mother of God" is otherworldly in that She possessed a humility that was not of this sinful world. With Mary, her role as Mother of God is actually one of humility and obedience and love, not of worldly and royal standing... Sorta like Opposite Day, or something...

« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 11:22:21 PM by Myrrh23 »

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

I was told that people, Protestant or not, must realize that Mary's role as "Mother of God" is otherworldly in that She possessed a humility that was not of this sinful world. With Mary, her role as Mother of God is actually one of humility and obedience and love, not of worldly and royal standing... Sorta like Opposite Day, or something...

Good point. In the Gospel reading for the Feast of the Annunciation (celebrated yesterday on the Gregorian Calendar) we read Mary's statement to Gabriel, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38) What greater humility have we then this act of free obedience to God's word?

I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

True enough, she did not give birth to the divinity, which would be blasphemous nonsense. But she did give birth to the divine person of the Word in his humanity, thus mother of God. When we speak of someone being the mother of another, or of bearing that person in the womb, we always look to the individual. The divinity of the Word isn't a personal subject, nor is his humanity. We don't speak of people giving birth to natures, but rather persons.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

But in the "biological sense" women don't give birth to "Natures" like "humanity" or "divinity", they give birth to Persons. And the Person Mary gave birth to is God, hence she is the God-Birther (Theotokos) or "Mother of God".

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

This is nothing but nestorianism. He says he is not dividing the person of Christ but he is. Mary was not the mother of a nature, she was the mother of a person, Jesus Christ who was both God and man. So, yes, she was the mother of God. And his denial of this is either nestorian or arian.

I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

Mary provided Him with His humanity. She was not just a vessel or a womb that carried Him without contributing some of herself to Him, as any mother does. Not to be facetious, but if they'd had DNA testing in those days, there would have been a match if they'd ever done a DNA test on Him. As said, Mary didn't just provide a womb and that's it. If Mary had said "no", we would still be waiting for the Messiah. God created Mary to be the one to bring His Son into the world in the Flesh. He created her to be the "New Eve" who would obey God and bring His salvation into the world in the flesh. A mother is mother to all of her child, including the parts that come from the other parent. No mother is mother to just the parts of her child that come from her. If Jesus was divine during His conception, His time in her womb, and afterwards, then she is also mother to that nature as well. The term "Mother of God" is used to protect Jesus's having always been divine. Nestorius and others tried to say that Jesus obtained His divinity later (some argue that it was during His baptism).

But in the "biological sense" women don't give birth to "Natures" like "humanity" or "divinity", they give birth to Persons. And the Person Mary gave birth to is God, hence she is the God-Birther (Theotokos) or "Mother of God".

Not only that, Ozzy, but Christ Himself chose not to end her role at His cruxifiction and death, but gave her to Humanity as our Mother. This is further supported at the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, as well as the Apostles. Besides...us rowdy human kids need a mother...

Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator

I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

Cleopas,

It seems to me what you and other Protestants have trouble with is that you think by the Orthodox saying "Mother of God" that the Theotokos created Christ and we mean nothing of the sort. We mean exactly as we have stated - that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, took flesh from the Virgin Mary and was born of her. She is Jesus's mother, but since he is also God, she is also the Mother of God. Does this help?

Elisha--What you wrote describes why I, at least, had trouble with this concept as a Protestant. Yet Cleopas' explanation is what I believed even as a Protestant. It sounds like yet another misunderstanding, each side understanding things correctly, but thinking the other has it wrong because of a difference in terms.

Logged

Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.

It seems to me what you and other Protestants have trouble with is that you think by the Orthodox saying "Mother of God" that the Theotokos created Christ and we mean nothing of the sort. We mean exactly as we have stated - that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, took flesh from the Virgin Mary and was born of her. She is Jesus's mother, but since he is also God, she is also the Mother of God. Does this help?

It does. In fact I would consider this to be essentially the same thing I said. At least, it is what I meant.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Personally this title is not an issue for me as a protestant (especially since I'm not seeking to convert), though I agree that it gives the implication (to protestants) of Mary being over Christ in relationship to His divinity in some sense.

However, I do fell the Orthodox and Catholics alike make more than is proper over Mary.

Now, I have no problem with honoring her as holding a unique place and function in the plan of God in the Incarnation.I have no problem with mentioning her as a prime example of faith and obedience to God.

However, I do have a problem with elevating her above the rest of humanity in respect to her relationship with the risen and ascended Son of God.Even Christ said that those who were obedient to the gospel were blessed above the mother whose paps gave him suck as an infant. So, in respect to obedience ot the gospel, Mary is equal with all believers, and all believers with Mary. Though clearly she is to be honored for her role in the incarnation.I do have a problem with praying to her and other "saints", but that's a different subject I suppose.I certainly have a problem with any idea of her as a co-redemptress (which I know is not an Orthodox position).

« Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 09:50:25 PM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

I think it was Thomas Hopko that stated somewhere that the Church used to use the term Theotokos in the liturgy for years before (in Fact Origen is the first documented writer that used the phrase but many other fathers had already used it around the early 3rd century) the controversy was just Nestorius around 400 AD caused a big fuss over not liking the term and wanting it changed to Christotokos.

Fwiw, according to Jaroslav Pelikan it was Alexander of Alexandria in c. 319 CE who was the first to use it for sure, and Athanasius a few years later. Pelikan does write about how "the title already enjoyed widespread acceptance in the piety of the faithful at Alexandria and beyond," but the context of this statement is so imprecise that it's difficult to tell when exactly he thinks such "widespread acceptance" actually happened--though I'd guess early 4th century (Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 105).

I heard the allegation that Theotokos was a term made up after St. Constantine (although it might have been something I heard in a discussion rebutting the charge). I found it noteworthy that one 3rd century song, before St. Constantine's time, refers to her this way.

I learned this in an Antiochian Orthodox email newsletter, which pointed to ancient writings that have been found:

Quote

the earliest known hymn in honor of the Virgin Mary:

Beneath thy compassion,We take refuge, O Theotokos:do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,but rescue us from dangers,only pure one, only blessed one.

The papyrus fragment of this hymn (Ryland's Papyrus, P52) dates between the mid to late third century. It is tempting to ascribe this prayer to Christians suffering persecution under Decius (249-251) or Valerian (257-260), but this association cannot be proved. Significantly, this famous invocation to the Theotokos occurs long before Constantine and almost two centuries before the ascription "Theotokos" was upheld by St. Cyril and the Fathers at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

I heard the allegation that Theotokos was a term made up after St. Constantine (although it might have been something I heard in a discussion rebutting the charge). I found it noteworthy that one 3rd century song, before St. Constantine's time, refers to her this way.

I learned this in an Antiochian Orthodox email newsletter, which pointed to ancient writings that have been found:

Quote

the earliest known hymn in honor of the Virgin Mary:

Beneath thy compassion,We take refuge, O Theotokos:do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,but rescue us from dangers,only pure one, only blessed one.

The papyrus fragment of this hymn (Ryland's Papyrus, P52) dates between the mid to late third century. It is tempting to ascribe this prayer to Christians suffering persecution under Decius (249-251) or Valerian (257-260), but this association cannot be proved. Significantly, this famous invocation to the Theotokos occurs long before Constantine and almost two centuries before the ascription "Theotokos" was upheld by St. Cyril and the Fathers at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Theotokos was a problem for me during my conversion. Not the title of Mother of God. The problem arose out of the defense of very Orthodox Christiology. On the other hand, it was the love of her that helped to draw me to Orthodoxy. While a Protestant I understood the consternation some had for her place but equally I've never understood the ugliness and rudeness some express toward her. Imagine going to somebody's house and disrespecting someone's mother in that fashion. Fear of the LORD is still the beginning of wisdom and disrespecting anyone's momma is not a healthy habit.

Logged

We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. Robert Wilensky Know the difference between success and fame.

Haha you make me laugh. Tell me then do you think that the church would not know the Mother of it's head? Mary was the Mother of God... How then the gospels say so. The church knew most of her life and from this knowledge some people inserted them into the gospels known as apocrypha.

Logged

God is Love.Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.

Haha you make me laugh. Tell me then do you think that the church would not know the Mother of it's head? Mary was the Mother of God... How then the gospels say so. The church knew most of her life and from this knowledge some people inserted them into the gospels known as apocrypha.